Podcasts about International migration

Dr. Ciara Smyth, a distinguished lecturer at the School of Law at University of Galway She is the Programme Director for the LLM in International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy at the Irish Centre for Human Rights. Her expertise lies in the areas of asylum law, refugee protection, and human rights.She talks about her very early experiences in post Pol Pot CambodiaShe later worked with the UNHCR in DublinThis episode is essential listening for anyone and everyone who would like to know how both the refugee and international protection systems work.Ciara's legal/cultural recommendation is a movie called 'The Swimmers'The episode also includes recent important cases drawn from the Decisis casebook. These are brought to you thanks to Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners, Georges St. Dun Laoghaire, Dublin.Case includeNorthern Ireland administration and whether it was recognised in Ireland - very interesting in terms of law across the two jurisdictionsA case involving the demolition of historic properties and an assessment that was not carried out. The sale of farmland and an injunction that was sought, claiming the land was being sold under its correct value. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since President Trump returned to the White House in January his administration has undertaken a number of actions that seem to signify a retreat from international support and cooperation, and reflect a broader shift toward prioritizing domestic interests over international collaboration, fundamentally altering the United States' traditional role in global affairs. Our guest's work focuses on issues that intersect with what's been unfolding on a number of levels. Dr. Andrew Rosenberg is an Associate Professor of International Relations and Political Methodology at University of Florida. His 2022 book “Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration” focuses on the politics of international migration and what drives and constrains it.

This week Dominic is joined by Ellen van Damme. They dive into the multifaceted complexities of gang violence in Honduras. Hear Ellen discuss her PhD research on gangs, violence and women, as well as her thoughts on how women and girls fall into gangs. They discuss the difference between narcos and gangs, as well as the dehumanisation the Western world undergoes. Listen now!Ellen Van Damme, PhD, is a criminologist specialising in ethnographic research on women, gangs, and migration. From 2016 to 2020, she was a PhD fellow of the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) at the Leuven Institute of Criminology(LINC), KU Leuven. Her doctoral research focused on the role of women in and around gangs in Honduras. In 2021-2022, she was a Fulbright scholar at the Center for the Study of International Migration at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where she examined female migration from Honduras to the United States. Since 2022, she has been a postdoctoral researcher at the Université libre de Bruxelles and a consultant for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). In 2023, she founded Field Research Coaching, a consultancy that trains and coaches academics and professionals working on sensitive topics in challenging environments.The book she mentioned was 'Tierra de Narcos', by Oscar Estrada.The International Risk Podcast is a must-listen podcast for senior executives, board members, and risk advisors. This weekly podcast explores current affairs, international relations, emerging risks, and strategic opportunities. Hosted by Dominic Bowen, Head of Strategic Advisory at one of Europe's top risk consulting firms, the podcast brings together global experts to share insights and actionable strategies.Dominic's 20+ years of experience managing complex operations in high-risk environments, combined with his role as a public speaker and university lecturer, make him uniquely positioned to guide these conversations. From conflict zones to corporate boardrooms, he explores the risks shaping our world and how organisations can navigate them.The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.Follow us on LinkedIn for all our great updates.Tell us what you liked!

In this week's episode, we focus on the increasingly salient issue of climate migration, delving into Climate Migration Council “A Compendium on Climate Mobility”. BPC Senior Advisor Theresa Cardinal Brown talks to Shana Tabak, the Director of Immigration at Emerson Collective and a Senior Advisor to the Climate Migration Council, and Elizabeth Ferris, Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. We cover the issue of climate migration, the work of the Climate Migration Council, and the solutions needed.  https://www.climatemigrationcouncil.org/compendium

Europe's migration dilemma. The deaths of people risking the dangerous Channel crossing from France to the UK puts more pressure on governments. Tough border controls are in place. So, how should countries tackle undocumented migration? In this episode: Nando Sigona, Professor, International Migration and Forced Displacement, University of Birmingham. Ravishaan Rahel Muthiah, Communications Director, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Yasha Maccanico, Co-president, Migreurop. Host: James Bays  Connect with us:@AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

Throughout the world, climate change is influencing human mobility. In a 2022 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that devastating floods and storms have triggered the displacement of 20 million people per year since 2008. While migration is influenced by many factors, including socio-economic status and political stability, research by the IPCC and others tells us that climate change is increasingly significant. So, how is climate change impacting human mobility? And what can policymakers do to address climate migration?  This week host Bill Loveless talks with Shana Tabak about how climate change influences migration both within and across borders. Shana is a human rights lawyer and the director of immigration strategy at Emerson Collective, where she leads engagement at the intersection of global migration and the climate crisis. She is also an adjunct professor of human rights at the Georgetown University Law Center and an affiliated scholar with Georgetown's Institute for the Study of International Migration.

A controversial British government plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been central to the UK's response to a recent sharp increase in the number of people making the dangerous journey across the English Channel in small boats. But if the Conservative party lose the general election in early July, the Rwanda plan is likely to be abandoned.In this episode, two experts in UK immigration policy explain how the Rwanda plan became such a crucial part of the immigration debate in the UK. And how, whatever happens in the election, it's already shifting the wider conversation in Europe about how to deal with migrants and asylum seekers.Featuring Nando Sigona, professor of international migration and forced displacement and director of the Institute for Research into International Migration and Superdiversity at the University of Birmingham and Michaela Benson, professor in public sociology at Lancaster University. They're both co-hosts of the Who do we think we are? podcast. This episode also includes an introduction from Avery Anapol, one of the politics team at The Conversation in the UK.This episode was written and produced by Mend Mariwany with assistance from Katie Flood. Eloise Stevens does our sound design, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl. Gemma Ware is the executive editor. Full credits available here. Subscribe to a free daily newsletter from The Conversation.Further reading and listening: Is the Rwanda plan acting as a deterrent? Here's what the evidence says about this approachRwanda asylum deportation plan faces more delays – how did we get here?Bespoke humanitarian visa schemes like those for Ukraine and Hong Kong can't replace the asylum systemI've spent time with refugees in French coastal camps and they told me the government's Rwanda plan is not putting them off coming to the UKMore coverage of the UK general election Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr Ralph Hurley O'Dwyer, registrar at the Mater Hospital and Dr Ciara Smyth, from the School of Law at the University of Galway and a programme director at the Irish Centre for Human Rights in International Migration, Refugee Law and Policy.

In this episode, LLM student Katie Davis speaks with Dr. Ciara Smyth, Programme Director of the LLM in International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, about Ireland's Direct Provision System and efforts to reform it. This podcast was recorded in mid-February discussing the accommodation crisis for asylum seekers in Ireland and by the time of its release the number of unhoused male asylum seekers has passed 1000 for the first time in Ireland- an unfortunate milestone. The podcast was produced by Gráinne McGrath, Katie Davis and Kirsten Larson. Intro Music: 'Smarties Intro -FMA Podcast Suggestions' by Birds for Scale (Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 international License). Outro Music 'Smarties Outro -FMA Podcast Suggestions' by Birds for Scale (Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 international License).

Dr Ciara Smyth- Lecturer, School of Law Programme Director, LL.M in International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy, Irish Centre for Human Rights helps separate facts from fiction when it comes to international protection applicants.

Washington state was ranked No. 37 for population decline compared to last year in new annual population estimates. http://tinyurl.com/5es3w3nj #TheCenterSquareWashington #WashingtonState #PopulationDecline #AnnualPopulationEstimates #Census #InternationalMigration #USCensusBureau #Migrants #Births #Deaths #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Project leader Andrea Weber, a professor of economics at the Central European University in Vienna, brings the first season of RFBerlin Talks to a close with her work on intra-European Union migration, specifically between Austria and Germany. Andrea highlights the lack of comprehensive data on these movements, emphasizing the importance of understanding their effects and policy implications. Her research aims to explore how labor mobility aligns with the European Union's principles while addressing the challenges stemmed from institutional differences across member countries.  Follow us and stay informed:

The South African Local Government Association, SALGA has concluded an international migration workshop to build consensus and unified approach in managing international migration. The workshop reviewed the impact of illegal immigration on local economies in borderline and inland municipalities from presentations that were done by the Metropolitan and District Mayors. For more on this Elvis Presslin spoke to SALGA's Portfolio Head of Community Services and Inclusivity, Nozibele Makanda.

The UK's interior minister says the international asylum system is outdated and needs to be reformed. Her views have been strongly rejected by the United Nations and human rights organisations. So what's behind them and do they have any support?    Join Host Mohammed Jamjoom  Guests:  Steve Valdez-Symonds - Director of Refugee and Migrants Rights, Amnesty International UK. Shabia Mantoo - Global spokesperson, United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR. Tim Bale - Professor of politics, Queen Mary University of London. 

In the Global North, media and political depictions of migration tend to be relentless images of little boats crossing bodies of water or crowds of people stacking up at a dotted line on a map. These depictions presume two things – that this is a generally comprehensive picture of migration and that, regardless of where you stand, the situation around migration is relatively dire. Enter Heaven Crawley, who heads equitable development and migration at United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. She also holds a chair in international migration at Coventry University's Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, and directs the South-South Migration, Inequality and Development Hub since 2019, a project supported by UK Research and Innovation's Global Challenges Research Fund. From her perch, spanning government, academe and field research, she says confidently in this Social Science Bites podcast that international migration “is not an entirely positive story, but neither is it an entirely negative one. What we're lacking in the media conversation and in the political discussion is any nuance.” Connecting nearly all the regional debates about migration “is the lack of an honest conversation about what migration is and what it has been historically. It has historically been the very thing that has developed the societies in which we live, and it is something on which the clock cannot be turned back. “And none of us, frankly, if migration was to end tomorrow, would benefit from that.” Trying to bring a clear eye to the debate, she explains to host David Edmonds that roughly 3.6 percent of the world's population, or 280 million people, could be considered migrants. Of that, about 32 million fit under the rubric of “refugee.” And while the sheer number of Migrants is growing, the percentage of the world's population involved has been “more or less the same” last three decades.   And while this might surprise European listeners, almost 40 percent of migration originates from Asia-- mostly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh -- followed by Mexico. There is a lot of migration from African countries, Crawley notes, which gibes with European media, but most of that migration isn't to Europe, but within the African continent. Who are these migrants? Overall, she says, most people who move are less than 45. Nonetheless, “the gender, the age really depends on the category you're looking at and also the region you are looking at.” Generalizations about their qualifications can be fraught: low-skills migrants ready to fill so-called “dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs” and high-skill migrants draining out their country's brains can often depart from the same nation. Crawley agrees that migration currently is a politically potent wedge issue, but she notes it has been in the past, too. She suggests that migration per se isn't even the issue in many migration debates. “A whole set of other things are going on in the world that people find very anxiety-producing” – rapid changes in society drawing from security, economy, demographics, and more, all against a backdrop of “migration simultaneously increasing (in the number of people on the move, not the proportion) and the variety of people also increasing.” This creates an easy out for policymakers, she says. “Politicians know that if they've got problems going on in society, it's very easy to blame migration, to blame migrants. It really is a very good distraction from lots of other problems they really don't want to deal with.” This is also why, she suggests, that responses such as deterrence are more popular than more successful interventions like addressing the inequalities that drive migration in the first place. Crawley's career saw her sit as head of asylum and migration research at the UK Home Office, serve three separate times as a specialist adviser to the UK Parliament's Home Affairs Committee and Joint Committee on Human Rights, and be associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research. In 2012, in recognition of her contribution to the social sciences and to evidence-based policymaking, she was named a fellow of Britain's Academy of Social Sciences.

20 years ago, after months of diplomatic wrangling at the UN, a US-led coalition invaded Iraq. The opening salvoes were described as ‘shock and awe', and the invading countries claimed to want to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, change the regime, and spread democracy to the Middle East. So what happened? Guests: Abdulrazzaq Al-Saiedi Technical expert on Iraq at Physicians for Human Rights Oula Kadhum Postdoctoral Fellow in Lund University and Fellow in International Migration at LSE Richard Toye Professor of Modern History at the University of Exeter Roundtable is a discussion programme with an edge. Broadcast out of London and presented by Philip Hampsheir, it's about bringing people to the table, listening to every opinion, and analysing every point of view. From fierce debate to reflective thinking, Roundtable discussions offer a different perspective on the issues that matter to you. Watch it every weekday at 15:00 GMT on TRT World.

In the latest episode of our Sweden in Focus podcast, host Paul O'Mahony is joined by regular panelists Becky Waterton, Richard Orange and James Savage, as well as guest Sayaka Osanami Törngren, Associate Professor in International Migration and Ethnic Relations at Malmö University.This week we start with a chat about the World Cup in Qatar which kicks off this weekend.How can I watch the 2022 World Cup on Swedish TV?We discuss a major spy scandal involving two brothers.KEY POINTS: What do we know so far about Sweden's new spy scandal?We look at an incredibly detailed newspaper article in Svenska Dagbladet that shines a light on what was happening behind the scenes when Ulf Kristersson was trying to put together his government.We examine why Sweden doesn't gather data on race and ethnicity like many other countries and discuss whether it should change its approach. This is the article by David Crouch that we mention: ‘No such thing as race': why Sweden's colour-blind approach is failingFinally, was last week's quiz success a flash in the pan? We put our panelists through their paces again with three more questions about Swedish culture and society.__JOIN THE LOCAL: Podcast listener offer Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 officially ended the explicit prejudice in American immigration policy that began with the 1790 restriction on naturalization to free White persons of “good character.” By the 1980s, the rest of the Anglo-European world had followed suit, purging discriminatory language from their immigration laws and achieving what many believe to be a colorblind international system. Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration (Princeton UP, 2022) challenges this notion, revealing how racial inequality persists in global migration despite the end of formally racist laws. In this eye-opening book, Andrew Rosenberg argues that while today's leaders claim that their policies are objective and seek only to restrict obviously dangerous migrants, these policies are still correlated with race. He traces how colonialism and White supremacy catalyzed violence and sabotaged institutions around the world, and how this historical legacy has produced migrants that the former imperial powers and their allies now deem unfit to enter. Rosenberg shows how postcolonial states remain embedded in a Western culture that requires them to continuously perform their statehood, and how the closing and policing of international borders has become an important symbol of sovereignty, one that imposes harsher restrictions on non-White migrants. Drawing on a wealth of original quantitative evidence, Undesirable Immigrants demonstrates that we cannot address the challenges of international migration without coming to terms with the brutal history of colonialism. Andrew Rosenberg is an assistant of political science at the University of Florida. His research examines racial inequality in the international system, the politics of migration, and global inequality. His current projects empirically break down the ideologies that maintain racial inequality in international migration. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, International Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and Security Dialogue. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Ohio State University and is originally from Des Moines, Iowa. Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She is the author of Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021). Email her comments at labdelaa@syr.edu or tweet to @LAbdelaaty. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese*, will provide a virtual briefing on key findings and conclusions of her report to the General Assembly on the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory. This webinar is co-organized by the Foreign Press Association and the Centre for United Nations Studies, University of Buckingham. The Special Rapporteur's report on the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people is now publicly available in all the official languages on the UN Official Documentation System. Francesca Albanese was appointed the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 by the Human Rights Council at its 49th session in March 2022 and has taken up her function as of 1 May 2022. Ms. Albanese is an Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, as well as a Senior Advisor on Migration and Forced Displacement for a think-tank, Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (ARDD). She has widely published on the legal situation in Israel and the State of Palestine and regularly teaches and lectures on international law and forced displacement at universities in Europe and the Arab region. Ms. Albanese has also worked as a human rights expert for the United Nations, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees. - This briefing is made possible by the Foreign Press Foundation. Donate at foreignpressassociation.org/ways-to-support.html Become a member of the Foreign Press Association at foreignpressassociation.org/join-the-association1.html Follow us on social media: twitter.com/fpanewsusa facebook.com/fpanewyork instagram.com/fpanewyork youtube.com/c/foreignpressassociationusa linkedin.com/in/fpausa/

As people find themselves queueing up at border controls in EU member states, as their passports are stamped, there have been questions about why these things are happening. It's all because of Brexit, and more specifically, the end of free movement between the UK and EU which means that British citizens are no longer EU citizens. But what do you know about EU citizenship is and isn't? In this episode we're joined by Nando Sigona, Professor in International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham, to talk Brexit, EU citizenship and what this makes visible about British citizenship. Michaela's explainer offers a whirlwind tour of EU citizenship from the Maastricht Treaty to Brexit, highlighting its emergence in the context of ambitions for European integration and considering what the loss of EU citizenship means for British citizens and their families. George experiences déjà vu as he uncovers how some politicians and parliamentarians in the UK responded to the idea of EU citizenship when it was mooted in 1992. And Nando helps us unpack what we can learn about citizenship from looking at Brexit as a political transition, its impacts on the lives of EU citizens living in the UK but also considering this in the context of racialised bordering practices, past and present, in the UK and EU. You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website. In this episode we cover … The Maastricht Treaty, EU citizenship Freedom of Movement Brexit and EU citizens Quote In a sense Brexit was a laboratory for seeing the redefinition and rewriting of citizenship in action but was not new in itself, actually there is almost an institutional memory of how to do these kind of things in the case of Britain. — Nando Sigona Find out more about … Nando and his work here, follow him on Twitter, read his book Within and beyond citizenship EU families and Eurochildren research Institute for Research into Refugees, International Migration and Superdiversity Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit research This episode's primary source for Back to the Archive Michaela's work Brexit and British citizens in the EU including her paper with Chantelle Lewis Call to action Follow the podcast on major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

More than 23,000 millionaires have left India since 2014 and, since 2015, nearly 9 lakh Indians – many of them highly qualified – have given up their citizenship. India is witnessing the sharpest rise in people migrating overseas, at nearly one crore between 2000 and 2020, according to the ‘International Migration 2020 Highlights' report issued by the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Why is India losing its best minds and most prosperous citizens? And where are they going? Migration advisor Saadat Shaikh speaks to All Indians Matter.

My guest today is Ellen van Damme. Ellen has a BA, MA, and PhD in Criminology from the KU Leuven in Belgium, as well as an MA in Conflict and Development from Ghent University in Belgium and has just finished a Fulbright Post-Doc at the Center for the Study of International Migration at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her PhD research concerned the role of women in and around gangs in Honduras, Central America, for which she did extensive field work between 2017 and 2020. Today we will talk about gangs in Central America, the role of gender, and the relationship to immigration. You can follow Ellen van Damme on Twitter at @EllenEvd.

In this episode we dive into the data on refugees and immigration. American public opinion seems very divided on these issues, but is it really? Is the U.S. more or less welcoming to refugees and immigrants than other parts of the world? How has disinformation influenced politics? Will the U.S. Southern Border, Ukraine, and other potential refugee crises affect the upcoming political elections in the U.S.? We bring in two experts to help discuss: Professor Katharine Donato holds the Donald G. Herzberg Chair in International Migration at Georgetown University and is Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Professor Donato is also a co-author of the HDSR article: Misinformation About COVID-19 and Venezuelan Migration: Trends in Twitter Conversation During a Pandemic Scott Tranter, Senior Vice President, Data Science and Engineering at Dynata and Co-Founder of Øptimus Analytics, which was acquired by Dynata in 2021. He is also an investor in Decision Desk HQ, which provides election results data to news outlets, political campaigns, and businesses.  

100 million people around the world are now displaced. War, violence, persecution and rights abuses are some of the main causes. But can this rising trend be reversed? And if so, how? Join host Mohammed Jamjoom. Guests: Shabia Mantoo,  Spokesperson at UN Refugee Agency. Nando Sigona, Professor of International Migration at University of Birmingham and Director of Institute of Research into Superdiversity. Behrouz Boochani, Author and Former Refugee.

Leaders across the Western Hemisphere signed on Friday the "Los Angeles Declaration on Migration," a robust new international agreement designed to buttress economies in Central…

Today's episode was recorded live in front of a virtual audience at a side event of the International Migration Review Forum. The episode is produced in partnership with CGIAR and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  The event was titled "Climate-related mobility and conflict: Pathways to peace and human security" and includes some extended expert commentary on this topic.  You will first hear from Sheggen Fan, system board member CGIAR followed by remarks from Shukri Ahmed, Deputy Director Office of Emergencies and Resilience at the FAO. I then moderate a panel discussion featuring: Prof. Dr. Vally Koubi, a Professor at and the Director of the Center for Comparative and International Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Zurich. Dr Bina Desai, Head of Programs with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center Pablo Escribano,  Regional Thematic Specialist for the Americas: Migration, Environment and Climate Change with the International Organization for Migration. and Prof Dr. Marisa O. Ensor, Adjunct Professor with the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University.  After they take some questions from the audience, some concluding remarks are offered by Katrina Kosec, Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Lecturer at Johns Hopkins University.  

Wir sprechen heute über Gastarbeiter:innen in der BRD und haben uns hier auf das Abkommen mit der Türkei fokussiert. Wir beginnen und sprechen über die Vorauswahl in der Türkei. Wie konnten sich Menschen bewerben? Nach welchen Kriterien wurde ausgesucht? Auch die Reise in die BRD schauen wir uns an und hier auch ganz besonders das Bild in der Öffentlichkeit So wurde das Wort "Transportleiter" durch das Wort "Reiseleiter" ausgetauscht um einen Vergleich mit Nazi-Deutschland zu verhindern. Außerdem sprechen wir über Essen, Wohnbedingungen, Momente der Solidarität und Freundschaft, ob Deutschland nun Einwanderungsland war, der Mythos der Integration durch Fußball und vieles mehr. Hausarbeitsthemen heute auch inklusive und for free. Wer Gast sein möchte, Fragen oder Feedback hat, kann dieses gerne an houseofmodernhistory@gmail.com oder auf Twitter an @houseofModHist richten. Literatur und Quellen: Zitat im Titel: Vorwort zu dem Buch «Siamo italiani – Die Italiener. Gespräche mit italienischen Arbeitern in der Schweiz» von Alexander J. Seiler, Zürich: EVZ 1965. Aybek, Can M.: Politics, Symbolics and Facts: Migration Policies and Family Migration from Turkey to Germany. PERCEPTIONS, Summer 2012, Vol. XVII, Nr. 2, pp. 37-59. Baumann, Ansbert: Mehr Integration? Fußball und Arbeitsmigranten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1955 bis 1973. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 2022: https://doi.org/10.1515/vfzg-2022-0003 Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Vor 60 Jahren: Anwerbeabkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Türkei, BpB, 2021: https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/hintergrund-aktuell/342651/vor-60-jahren-anwerbeabkommen-zwischen-der-bundesrepublik-deutschland-und-der-tuerkei/ Dejung, Christof: Oral History und kollektives Gedächtnis. Für eine sozialhistorische Erweiterung der Erinnerungsgeschichte. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 34, 2008, S. 96-115. Dunsworth, Edward: Book Review of Miller, Jennifer A.: Turkish Guest Workers in Germany: Hidden Lives and Contested Borders, 1960s to 1980s. Global Labour Journal, 1019 10(1), pp. 95-97. Faist, Thomas: Social Citizenship for Whom? Young Turks in Germany and Mexican Americans in the United States, Avebury, Aldershot, 1995. Hunn, Karin: „Nächstes Jahr kehren wir zurück…“ Die Geschichte der türkischen „Gastarbeiter“ in der Bundesrepublik. Göttingen, 2005. Mattes, Monika: „Gastarbeiterinnen“ in der Bundesrepublik. Anwerbepolitik, Migration und Geschlecht in den 50er bis 70er Jahren, Frankfurt a. Main, 2005. Miller, Jennifer A.: Turkish Guest Worker in Germany. Hidden Lives and Contested Borders 1960s to 1980s. Toronto, 2018. Philip, Martin: Guest or Temporary Foreign Worker Programs. In: Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, Vol. 1A, Elsevier B. V. 2015, Chapter 14, S. 717-771. Severein-Barboutie, Bettina: Multiple Deutungen und Funktionen. Die organisierte Reise ausländischer Arbeitskräfte in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1950er-1970er Jahre) Geschichte und Gesellschaft, Vol. 44 No. 2, 2018, pp. 223-249. Soehn, Janina: Immigrant Settlement Structures in Germany: General Patterns and Urban Levels of Concentration of Major Groups. Urban Studies, 2009. Topp, Sascha: Medical selection in the recruitment of migrant workers („Gastarbeiter“) in: Ilkiliç, Ilhan; Ertin, Hakan; Brömer, Rainer & Zeeb Hajo (Eds.): Health, Culture and the Human Body. Epidemology, Ethics and History of Medicine, Perspectives from Turkey and Central Europe. Pp. 19-38. Vierra, Sarah Thomson: Turkish Germans in the Federal Republic of Germany. Immigration, Space, and Belonging, 1961-1990. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. Walraff, Günther: Ganz unten. KiWi, 1985.

Penultimate Season 2 episode of Contraelite! (Apologies for having taken such a long time to get these out, but life happens, guys!) On today's episode, we get deep into international migration and global historical trends that lay the foundations for current political issues, and to provide an excellent and expert analysis on these issues, we are joined by Dr. Eglė Verseckaitė Grzeskowiak, who earned her Ph.D in political science at the Johns Hopkins University, after completing her master's and bachelor's degrees at Vilnius University Institute of International Relations and Political Science. She is currently a Senior Lecturer at ISM University of Management and Economics in Vilnius, Lithuania. In addition to teaching in universities, she has worked for a governmental institution, a think tank and a political party. Dr. Verseckaitė Grzeskowiak has a special graduate certificate in Racism, Immigration and Citizenship and gives public lectures on migration issues. If you know us, you know we have special love for Lithuania, so you know we were happy as a clam to have the opportunity to chat with our guest! Why are people migrating from so many different places, and what's up with the similar yet negative reaction from host countries, who historically may have had a direct role in causing these push-pull factors? What's capitalism's influence on all this? And had you even heard of homo sovieticus? Follow us @Contraelite1 on Twitter and Instagram http://anchor.fm/contraelite Our breaks music is "Draco" by Yung Kartz (https://www.yungkartzbeats.com/) Related reading and more information about our guest: Facts & Myths about International Migration (Video) https://youtu.be/tDUrFVs4V78 Populism and Ideas of the Nation (Panel brief) https://www.ipsa.org/wc/panel/populism-and-ideas-nation Brexit and the Framing of the EU in the Media (link to Abstract of paper): https://www.ipsa.org/wc/paper/brexit-and-framing-eu-media

A long edition for your leisurely Sunday. Thanks for your patienceIndia Policy Watch #1: Call Of Duty Insights on burning policy issues in India- RSJMany among you of a particular age might remember a familiar trope from old Hindi films. A key protagonist, grievously injured or sick, is wheeled into the operation theatre. There’s a small red bulb on top of the door that turns on. Grim music plays in the background. After a while, the surgeon steps out, take off his gloves and looks at the assorted mix of anxious relatives with resignation. Then he says, “ab inhe dawa ki nahin dua ki zaroorat hai” (he needs prayers now; not umm… paracetamol). That’s how I feel when I hear public discourse in any democracy get tangled up between rights and duties. Not a lot of good has come out of exhorting people to do their duty in the history of this world. So pardon my anxiety when I find constitutional functionaries conflate rights and duties, or worse, seem to privilege duties over rights. But that’s exactly what I have been coming across in the past two months. Two examples will suffice. Last week the PM made these remarks in an event organised by Brahma Kumaris Sanstha:At the same time, we also have to admit that in the 75 years after Independence, a malaise has afflicted our society, our nation and all of us. It is that we turned away from our duties and did not give them primacy. In the last 75 years, we only kept talking about rights, fighting for rights and wasting our time. The issue of rights may be right to some extent in certain circumstances, but neglecting one's duties completely has played a huge role in keeping India vulnerable.India lost considerable time because duties were not accorded priority. We can make up for the gap which has been created due to primacy about rights while keeping duties at bay in these 75 years by discharging duties in the next 25 years.A few days later, the President had this to say in his address to the nation on the eve of the Republic Day:Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. The observance of the Fundamental Duties mentioned in the Constitution by the citizens creates the proper environment for enjoyment of Fundamental Rights.….Patriotism strengthens the sense of duty among citizens. Whether you are a doctor or a lawyer, a shopkeeper or office-worker, a sanitation employee or a labourer, doing one’s duty well and efficiently is the first and foremost contribution you make to the nation.There are many, and their numbers are probably rising in India, who might wonder what’s remotely problematic with this kind of framing of rights and duties? Isn’t it true that we, Indians, don’t do enough for our country? Or, is this not what JFK meant when uttered those famous lines - “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Isn’t a call for public service and invoking a spirit of self-sacrifice for nation-building important? This is what leaders are supposed to do, they might say. I won’t disagree so long as there’s clarity on the nature of rights and duties and where they are placed in relation to one another. This is often misunderstood in India where duty or its nearest equivalent Sanskrit term, dharma, has great civilisational and cultural significance. Rights are often seen as some kind of a western enlightenment imposition on our society which otherwise knew its dharma and its karma. Unfortunately, this as we will see, reflects both a shallow understanding of rights and of dharma.Rights Aren’t EarnedThe first notion to appreciate is that regardless of social, ethnic or temporal differences, an individual is born with certain rights. You could call them fundamental or inalienable. That she is endowed with these rights is prior to any other knowledge about her. This privilege of rights is what creates a corresponding set of duties among others. For instance, the right to life places the onus on others to not kill her. This can be of a legal nature which is enforceable by laws of the society. Or, in case of other rights, the onus on others could be a moral one which is then protected by a code of living together that’s understood by all. This onus then is the duty that an individual has towards rest of the community. It stems from accepting that others have rights. In other words, rights are ontologically prior to duties. This is the basis for the creation of any community. You respect individual rights, you create codes to protect them and living by that code becomes the duty of the members of the community. This is how societies are built. Ronald Dworkin, the American philosopher, in his book Taking Rights Seriously, calls rights as ‘trumps’ that can be used to overturn any justification of collective imposition on an individual:“Individual rights are political trumps held by individuals. Individuals have rights when, for some reason, a collective goal is not a sufficient justification for denying them what they wish, as individuals, to have or to do, or not a sufficient justification for imposing some loss or injury upon them.We may therefore say that justice as fairness rests on the assumption of a natural right of all men and women to equality of concern and respect, a right they possess not by virtue of birth or characteristic or merit or excellence but simply as human beings with the capacity to make plans and give justice.”Between Rights And DutiesBut is being a rights absolutist enough to have a functioning and effective society? What’s the kind of interplay between rights and duties? Are there any grounds to limit the definition of a right to serve a larger public benefit? This is particularly tricky territory. A useful framework to think about this is to use what’s called “the Hohfeldian incidents” in jurisprudence. Named after the American legal theorist, Wesley Hohfeld, it explains the internal structure of any right to have four components or ‘elements’, namely, privilege, claim, power and immunity. Understanding this ‘molecular structure’ of a right is key to understanding its interplay with duty.Privilege: You have the right to sleep on a weekend afternoon. This right is a privilege. You have no duty not to do it. No one can say it is your duty not to sleep on a weekend afternoon. Claim: You have an employment contract with your employer and this gives you the right to be paid your salary. This right is a claim. That is you have a claim on your employer to pay you a salary. And your employer has the duty to pay you the wages. So, a claim-right always comes with a duty for someone who is the bearer of that duty (in this case the employer). The direction of the duty is often debated. For instance, you could argue that the employer has the claim-right that you do a certain amount of work based on the contract and you have the duty to do that work. Anyway, claim-right is critical to understand the relation between the citizen and the government as well. Take taxes as an example. The government has the claim-right to collect taxes from citizens to fund its work. The citizen bears the duty to pay taxes. Privileges and Claims are often called the primary rules in Hohfeldian analysis. They define what activities can or cannot be performed by individuals. Power and Immunity are the secondary rules which explain how someone can change the primary rules.Power: Power allows an individual to change his own or someone else’s primary rules (privilege or claim). So, the CEO of a firm may order someone to work on a weekend afternoon and take away the privilege of sleeping. Or, your friend may waive the claim that you do not drive away with his car by allowing you to borrow it during the weekend. This waiver endows you with a privilege that you otherwise didn’t have. Immunity: When you don’t have the power to change someone else’s primary rules, then that person has immunity. For example, you have immunity from the Indian state forcing you to change your religion. Opposites and Correlatives:What Hohfeld did following this was to arrange these incidents in a logical structure of “opposites” and “correlatives”. He also added a few other terms: ‘no-claim’ which is the opposite of claim; and, ‘liability’ and ‘disability’ that correlate with someone having power or immunity respectively. In a simple form this can be shown as:OppositesIf A has a Claim, then A lacks a No-claimIf A has a Privilege, then A lacks a DutyIf A has a Power, then A lacks a DisabilityIf A has an Immunity, then A lacks a Liability.CorrelativesIf A has a Claim, then some person B has a DutyIf A has a Privilege, then some person B has a No-claimIf A has a Power, then some person B has a LiabilityIf A has an Immunity, then some person B has a Disability.As stated here:A privilege is the opposite of a duty; a no-right is the opposite of a right. A disability is the opposite of a power; an immunity is the opposite of a liability.‘Correlatives’ signifies that these interests exist on opposing sides of a pair of persons involved in a legal relationship. If someone has a right, it exists with respect to someone else who has a duty. If someone has a privilege, it exists with respect to someone else who has no-right. If someone has a power, it exists with respect to someone else who has a liability. If someone has an immunity, it exists with respect to someone else who has a disability.A right can be enforced by a lawsuit against the person who has the correlative duty. A privilege negates that right and duty, and typically would be asserted as an affirmative defense in the lawsuit. A power is the capacity to create or change a legal relationship.Simply put, there’s an interplay between rights and duties but in no circumstance are rights and duties ‘two sides of the same coin’ or ‘upholding of duties lead to a downstream privilege of enjoying rights’. Our Civilisation Is No ExceptionLastly, there’s always a call to some kind of civilisational value among Indians where we apparently held our duty above everything else. The idea of maryada purushottam or various kinds of dharma - saadharan dharma, vishesh dharma and swadharma - are invoked to suggest we placed the adherence to our duties as the highest form of self-realisation and as the basis for organising our lives. Is this true? There’s, of course, the usual challenge of understanding the context of Indian scriptures. These concepts are variously described with a lack of coherence because what we are left with fragments of metatexts with no clear interpretation of why and how these ideas have come about. As commonly understood, dharma is about doing the right thing. A simple definition is that it is a code of doing the right things at a universal level that ‘holds all of us together’. It is a necessary condition for a functioning society but is it ontologically prior to individual rights? It is not clear. The fact that dharma is invoked to hold us together already presupposes we are together in some form. And it can be argued that coming together can only be on the basis of respecting the individual rights of one another in the first place. On that, we must have built an architecture of dharma to make sure public-spiritedness and working for the collective is codified in our way of life. In some ways, I can agree we might have figured out Hohfeldian logic in our scriptures much earlier than the West. But it is a far stretch to claim some kind of exceptionalism about being a society where duties came before rights. The Emphasis On DutyThe reason I get anxious when I hear the discourse on duties is that it has a terrible past. Even in India, the founding fathers and mothers in all their wisdom didn’t include the idea of duties in our constitution. The bizarre idea of fundamental duties was included in the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency through the 42nd amendment. There it has remained since. And it isn’t as if the post-enlightenment thinkers weren’t taken in by the idea of duties. Mazzini, whose thoughts and essays were instrumental in the creation of the Italian state, wrote about duties extensively. The exhortation to a people to think of themselves as different and better than that of the other and begetting proto-nationalism in the late 19th century Europe were his key contributions. Sample this:…. Wherever you may be, into the midst of whatever people you have been driven by circumstances, fight for the liberty of that people if the moment calls for it; but fight as Italians, so that the blood which you shed may win honor and love, not for you only, but for your Country. And may the constant thought of your soul be for Italy, may all the acts of your life be worthy of her, and may the standard beneath which you range yourselves to work for Humanity be Italy's. Do not say I; say we. Be every one of you an incarnation of your Country, and feel himself and make himself responsible for his fellow-countrymen; let each one of you learn to act in such a way that in him men shall respect and love his Country. Your Country is one and indivisible. As the members of a family cannot rejoice at the common table if one of their number is far away, snatched from the affection of his brothers, so you should have no joy or repose as long as a portion of the territory upon which your language is spoken is separated from the Nation. As you will notice, while Mazzini begins his famous essay The Duties of Man (1844-58) by claiming the first duty of man is to humanity, he gradually sinks into ideas that had terrible consequences for humanity half a century later in the form of two world wars. There’s a reason why there have been no recorded instance in history when people have agitated for their duties. All uprisings and rebellions are about the fights for rights. People understand their duties both intuitively and as part of the social compact. It is part of traditions in communities. Rights are often trampled in the name of duty by establishment and authoritarian figures to perpetuate power. There are temporary occasions when an overemphasis on duties is valid. During a war (like that Kennedy line on country during the peak of the cold war) or during an internal crisis (Gandhi often invoked it). But those exceptions aside, it is otherwise brought in by establishment to explain underperformance or to shift the blame on to citizens from the shoulders of the state. It is equivalent to gaslighting the citizens in a democracy.India Policy Watch #2: Buy Now Pay Later ft. GovernmentInsights on burning policy issues in India- Pranay KotasthaneThe finance minister will present the union budget in Parliament next week. A related news item flagging the rising debt commitments caught my attention:"Interest burden is likely to stay around Rs 9.30 lakh crore for FY23," a finance ministry official told ET.This is an increase of 15 percent on the Rs 8.1 lakh crore which has been budgeted for interest payments in the current fiscal. The amount is also 16.9 percent higher than the revised estimate for FY21.”If government finances don’t interest you, these numbers may sound meaninglessly large. Nevertheless, let me try and explain why you should care.To the question “what is the single largest expenditure item of the union government?”, the two most common answers I get are defence or salaries. Both answers are wrong. The biggest expenditure item is the interest paid by the union government to borrowers on past loans. The chart below from the previous year’s budget tells us that roughly a fifth of the government’s total expenditure is being spent on interest payments. The news report from earlier this week suggests that this interest payment is set to increase further this year. The single most important reason we should care is because of intergenerational inequity — the more that governments live beyond their present means today, the less money they leave for future governments and citizens to decide their own spending priorities. That’s what a real debt-trap looks like. Of course, many governments across the world run deficits and the Indian government is not an exception. Most often, governments take loans to finance physical and social infrastructure. If that is the case, intergenerational inequity is mitigated to the extent that the outputs continue to be used by future generations. However, that is not the case in India. The union government still runs a sizable revenue deficit, meaning that a part of government borrowing is being used merely to keep the government running today. In other words, we are snatching money from future generations to meet the demands of the current generation’s citizens and government employees. This tells us why the rampant expansion of government expenditure is not just irresponsible but also unethical. I’ll end this section with a quote by Martin Feldstein from his LK Jha Memorial Lecture at RBI:“Unfortunately, it is easy to ignore budget deficits and postpone dealing with them because the adverse effects of budget deficits are rarely immediate. Fiscal deficits are like obesity. You can see your weight rising on the scale and notice that your clothing size is increasing, but there is no sense of urgency in dealing with the problem. That is so even though the long-term consequences of being overweight include an increased risk of a sudden heart attack as well as of various chronic conditions like diabetes. Like obesity, government deficits are the result of too much self-indulgent living as the government spends more than it collects in taxes. And, also like obesity, the more severe the problem, the harder it is to correct: the overweight man has a harder time doing the exercise that could reduce his weight and the economy with a large deficit and debt is trapped by increasing interest payments that cause the deficit and debt to rise more quickly. I emphasize the analogy to stress the point that budget deficits need attention now even when their adverse effects may not be obvious.”India Policy Watch #3: The Great Indian ExitInsights on burning policy issues in India- Pranay KotasthaneIndia has long been a leading outlier as a source for out-migration. Further, thanks to a Lok Sabha question in December 2021, we know that more than 1 lakh people have been renouncing their Indian citizenship every year over the last several years.Emigration is an important consideration if not an important life goal for many Indians. At one end of the income spectrum, it is a ticket out of poverty. On the other end, it leads to a step-up in one’s quality of life. But how should we see emigration from the lens of public policy? Beyond facile “brain drain vs brain gain” discussions, how do we understand the impact of emigration on India? Let’s establish the boundary conditions first. Because emigration is a voluntary act by an individual, it is a force of immense good. As emigration is one of the partial answers for achieving yogakshemah, the Indian State must make it easier for Indians who want to leave India. There is no justification in a liberal democracy for moralising Indians on staying back just because, for instance, they received subsidised education in a government college.Going beyond individual choices, what’s the aggregate effect of emigration on India? Turns out, there’s no good empirical answer. While states generally pay close attention to immigrants, the country of origin has little incentive to keep track of the lifecycle of emigration. Consequently, this area of research is not exactly a gold mine. And so, for the last comprehensive assessment of India’s emigration, we have to turn to a 2010 book Diaspora, Development, and Democracy: The Domestic Impact of International Migration from India by well-known political scientist Devesh Kapur. Given below is my annotated summary of the book. Kapur remarks that:“one cannot a priori posit whether international migration is “good” or “bad” for a country. The outcomes depend heavily on the policies of the country of origin—which of course can (and do) change over time.”Coming to India’s case, he contends that the economic effects of emigration have been mixed while the political effects of emigration are largely positive. The Economic Impact of EmigrationLet’s take the economic effects first. The migration of less-skilled labour to West Asia has had a positive effect not just for those who emigrated but also for those who were left behind as the decrease in labour supply has led to more domestic migration and rising wages. Further, incoming remittances have played a big role in stabilising India’s macroeconomic situation.In contrast, the economic effects of the emigration of high-skilled labour to the West are more ambiguous. On the positive side, the success of these Indians has improved the reputation of India and Indians worldwide. Moreover, some of them have acted as bridges for the flow of ideas, technologies, and information back to India. On the negative side, the exit of professionals has contributed to making institutions that were globally competitive at the time of independence, mediocre organisations with low ambition and drive. Kapur also suggests a reason as to why the famed Indian diaspora has not been able to make India a manufacturing hub:“India’s economically successful diaspora has developed a comparative advantage in white-collar skilled services such as information technology (IT) and tertiary medical services. Consequently, the investments they have influenced into India have also been in these sectors, rather than blue-collar labor-intensive manufacturing sectors (the diamond industry is an exception). The Indian example illustrates a broader point about how the sectoral expertise acquired by emigrants overseas diffuses back to the country of origin. Parallels can be draw with the Chinese example, where the economically successful Chinese diaspora (especially in Hong Kong, Southeast Asia, and Taiwan) made its wealth (and acquired relevant capabilities) in labor-intensive manufacturing, and therefore its investments into China were in related sectors as well.”The Political Impact of EmigrationThe political effects of emigration, Kapur argues, are positive in two ways. One, returning emigres and international exposure have helped in strengthening the commitment to liberal democratic politics. Twelve years after the book was published, this claim appears weaker. Liberal democratic politics in the west itself has been battered. Moreover, the role of the Indian diaspora in furthering majoritarian anti-liberal politics has grown at a much faster rate than its antidote.Two, Kapur suggests that the exit possibilities of emigration served an important social function. It acted as a pressure relief valve for the dominant upper-caste elites, making them less opposed to the political ascendancy of the marginalised social groups. In the absence of emigration opportunities, the contestation over job reservations and education quotas would’ve been much sharper. Here again, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the possibility of emigration hasn’t been an entirely effective pressure-releasing mechanism, as evidenced by the new legislation for reservations to economically backward but upper-caste sections.The book’s conclusion resonated with me. Ultimately, where diasporas become sources of power or areas of weaknesses principally depends on domestic policy and politics. First, forty years of socialist thinking, directly and indirectly, made emigrants distant. Illustrating this point, Kapur writes:“In those years, when the Indian community was thrown out of East Africa, socialist India pressed the United Kingdom to admit them, seeing little benefit in attracting the community’s commercial skills and capital back to India. And when the British government finally gave in to pressure from India, it was seen as a major foreign policy achievement.”Second, poor policy and business environments continue to make India less lucrative for emigrants:“The well-known infrastructural and policy weaknesses in manufacturing have steered the diaspora’s role in IT more toward the software side, rather than developing the hardware sector. The decades of migration from Kerala have made it a remittance dependent economy, but one that has been unable to capitalize on this any further because of political and policy constraints in the state.”And third, while India and Indians love to celebrate its emigrants who make it big in other countries, it does not allow the same opportunities for its immigrants. In short, emigration from India does have a few negative political and economic effects. But mitigating these effects ultimately requires doing the tough job of improving the domestic social, economic, and business environment. There’s no shortcut. Matsyanyaaya: Who’s Arm-twisting Whom?Big fish eating small fish = Foreign Policy in action— Pranay Kotasthane(Cross-posted from Technopolitik — Takshashila Institution’s High Tech Geopolitics Newsletter)This story has it all: geopolitics, anti-trust, national pride, future of technology, and capital markets.The PreludeARM (mentioned as “Arm” from here on) licenses its CPU designs to customers such as Apple, Qualcomm, Nvidia, and MediaTek. For a long time, it has been trying to break into the data centre CPU market, dominated by Intel and AMD’s x86 designs. Despite an impressive list of customers, Arm’s financial fortunes haven’t been great — revenues through licensing fees and royalties have been on the decline since 2016.Even though Arm is the sole supplier for mobile companies, why would this happen? Primarily due to four reasons. First, the mobile phone market is already saturating. Second, customers such as Broadcom, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Samsung, and Apple have an expansive Arm architecture license (as against implementation licenses), allowing them to design their customised Arm-compatible processors. So, Arm has little leverage over the sales from these companies. Third, Arm’s big bet on another market — datacentres — hasn’t worked out. And fourth, Arm cannot increase its license fee to compensate for sagging revenues because it faces a new challenge in the form of RISC-V technology.The PlayersIn September 2020, Nvidia announced a deal to buy Arm. Since then, Nvidia’s shares have almost doubled. But after months of being blocked by four regulators — in China, the US, the EU, and the UK — reports suggest that Nvidia is planning to abandon the deal.Let’s have a look at all the perspectives first.In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is opposing the deal because the deal would “distort Arm’s incentives in chip markets and allow the combined firm to unfairly undermine Nvidia’s rivals.” Unsurprisingly, many high-flying competitors of Nvidia such as Qualcomm and Intel are staunchly opposed to this deal as they feel Nvidia might partially delay or block their access to Arm CPU blueprints. The EU antitrust regulators also have similar objections to the deal.In contrast, the dominant narrative in the UK is that the deal would hurt national pride. In ordinary times, such a narrative wouldn’t have carried far. But when the entire world looks at semiconductors from a strategic lens, this view has policy relevance. So, even though Arm is already owned and controlled by a Japanese investment firm, Softbank, the UK has renewed calls to list it back on the London Stock Exchange.Next, Arm and Nvidia’s joint submission to the UK’s Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) comprehensively captures the two companies' viewpoints. Their main argument is that Arm faces an uncertain future without a takeover. The submission explicitly says:Deal opponents romanticize Arm’s past and either ignore or disparage Arm’s most powerful competition. But if Arm had market power, it would have sizable revenue growth and would be enormously profitable.The submission further claims why this deal would increase competition instead of reducing it.For China, the concerns are entirely different. This deal would mean a more potent lever in the hands of the US to constrain China’s semiconductor sector. The US has already demonstrated that it could deploy wide-ranging export controls to block access to chips to geopolitical adversaries. With Nvidia controlling Arm, China fears that the US can easily prohibit Arm from selling to Chinese customers. As a result, China has been staunchly opposing this deal.To be sure, the US can still pressurise Arm to not sell to customers in the absence of a deal. Just like it prevented the Dutch semiconductor manufacturing equipment star ASML from selling cutting-edge Extreme Ultra-Violet lithography machines to Chinese companies. Nevertheless, getting the UK — for whom this has become a national pride issue — to comply with such restrictions is far more complicated.The ResultThe deal opponents have their unique reasons. There’s no concrete evidence to suggest that the opponents are collaborating. Regardless, the net geopolitical effect is that China would be immensely relieved if the deal fails. At the same time, China would want to get RISC-V further up to speed with Arm so that this geopolitical weakness is taken out of the question over the long term.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Podcast] On Puliyabaazi, Pranay and Saurabh have an in-depth conversation on India’s newly announced semiconductor policies. [Speech] A speech on regulating capital markets by CB Bhave — one of the best takes you’ll find on the subject. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Hello Podcast listeners, Today is a very special episode with Duncan Jepson, Managing Director at Liberty Shared and co-host, Gabriel Thoumi. Duncan is also a Lecturer at Princeton University and an Affiliated Scholar, Institute of the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. Duncan authored several books including, “Emperors Once More”, “All the Flowers of Shanghai”, and “Darkness Outside the Night”. He is also an award-winning director, writer and producer of five feature films and has produced documentaries for Discovery Channel Asia and National Geographic Channel. In today's episode we discuss forced labor and slave reporting and what his means for investors. Enjoy and thanks for the listen!

Today marks International Migration day. South Africa hosts the largest number of immigrants on the African continent. According to official estimates, the country is home to about 2.9 million immigrants, which would account for slightly less than 5 percent of the overall population of 60 million people. However, this number is thought to be an underestimate because of the presence of large numbers of unauthorised migrants, particularly from neighbouring countries. The numbers of migrants has increase significantly since the dawn of democracy in 1914. Udo Carelse spoke to UNICEF South Africa Child Protection Specialist, Helen Nyangoya, 19-year-old Refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Shekinah and ambassador for UNICEF's social messaging tool, U-Report, Ofentse

Over the summer of 2021 the world saw what can only be described as the fall of Afghanistan. Taliban offensive forces rapidly overtook the country in a matter of weeks, causing chaos within its borders and concern from the international community about what would happen to its citizens. There was a collective understanding that these individuals needed support, and along with it an understanding that we needed to take in refugees from that country. A few weeks later, the Canadian government committed to accepting Afghan 40,000 refugees (until now only 5,500 have been admitted). This isn't the first time Canada has taken in a large group of refugees at one time. There are parallels (and considerable differences) between what is happening now and what happened during the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis, and we can learn a lot from our successes and mistakes during that 2015 initiative. On this episode of the podcast I speak with three individuals who have deep experience in refugee migration and settlement in Canada. First up is Thomas Soehl, an associate professor at McGill University and Canada Research Chair in International Migration. He is currently working on Tajribati, a project in which a McGill team is conducting interviews with thousands of Syrian refugees to explore the socio-cultural and political aspects of their adjustment to life in Canada, with a focus on intergenerational dynamics and informal support networks. Next is Alexandra Dawley, Senior Manager of Refugee Resettlement and Integration Programs at Mosaic ─ a British Columbia-based organization ─ one of Canada's largest resettlement nonprofits, which serves immigrant, refugee and migrant communities throughout BC. Last I talk with Ramez Al-Jassem, who arrived in Canada in late 2016 as a Syrian refugee, to discuss his experience as a refugee and a Canadian citizen.

A Kaldor Centre Virtual Conference 2021 key panel session held on 21 October 2021. Sometimes the impacts of disasters and climate change mean that whole areas may become unsafe to live in. Communities may be faced with the prospect of relocation. But who decides – to move at all, and if so, where? Planned relocations traverse a complicated cultural, legal and land title landscape. What does a ‘successful' planned relocation look like? Hear from Erica Bower, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law; Daniel Fitzpatrick, Faculty of Law, Monash University; Salote Soqo, Climate Justice & Crisis Response, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; Merewalesi Yee, University of Queensland; and chaired by Elizabeth Ferris, Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University

Over the past weeks and months I have endlessly heard about the migrant crisis in the channel and about untold numbers of folks crossing into Britain in order to seek asylum. I have had so many questions about the crisis that are simply not mentioned or addressed by those who are covering the issue - whether than is the papers or the BBC. So I decided that the absolute best thing I could do, would be to have an expert on the show to discuss the issue and I was lucky enough to be able to talk through the refugee crisis, where they are coming from, the real process for seeking asylum, and much much more with Professor Heaven Crawley from Coventry University. Heaven Crawley is Professor of International Migration at Coventry University's Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations where she leads a team of researchers working on issues of migration, displacement and belonging. Heaven was previously head of asylum and immigration research at the UK Home Office and Associate Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr). Over the past 25 years Heaven has worked with refugees and asylum seekers from a wide range of countries and backgrounds. Her main interests are in better understanding the experiences of forced migrants including the reasons why people feel compelled to leave their countries of origin, their experiences of the journey to their new country and how they adapt to the social, economic and personal challenges and opportunities that living in a new country inevitably brings.  HELP ME CROWDFUND MY GAMESTOP BOOK. Go to https://wen-moon.com to join the crowdfunding campaign and pre-order To The Moon: The GameStop Saga! If you haven't already and you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to this podcast and our mailing list, and don't forget, my book, Brexit: The Establishment Civil War, is now out, you'll find the links in the description below. WIN SOME STUFF FOR FREE - https://thejist.co.uk/chatter-giveaway-win-some-amazing-prizes/  Watch Us On Odysee.com - https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TheJist:4   Sign up and watch videos to earn crypto-currency! Buy Brexit: The Establishment Civil War - https://amzn.to/39XXVjq  Mailing List - https://www.getrevue.co/profile/thejist  Twitter - https://twitter.com/Give_Me_TheJist  Website - https://thejist.co.uk/     Music from Just Jim – https://soundcloud.com/justjim    Resources https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/persons/heaven-crawley  https://www.asylumjustice.org.uk/people/professor-heaven-crawley/  https://www.mideq.org/en/about-us/our-team/professor-heaven-crawley/ 

Season 3, Episode 5: For our next installment on global commons issues, ISD Director of Programs and Research Kelly McFarland talks to Beth Ferris, research professor in the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown and non-resident senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, about the impact of environmental change on migration. They discuss the ways in which climate change is driving internal displacement and international migration, the need for new vocabulary to describe this phenomenon and the people who experience it, and recent events in Afghanistan and other migration hot spots. Beth also provides a forecast on what she's hoping for from the forthcoming COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.  We also hear from Jeremy Mathis, professor the Science, Technology, and International Affairs program and the Center for Security Studies in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, and Bibi La Luz Gonzalez of Eat Better Wa'ik—an anti-hunger NGO in Guatemala. Listen to previous episodes with Bibi and Jeremy on our website, or by searching for Diplomatic Immunity in your podcast app.   New Challenges to Human Security: Environmental Change and Human Mobility, ISD New Global Commons Working Group (April 2017) The New Arctic: Navigating the Realities, Possibilities, and Problems, ISD New Global Commons Working Group Report (July 2018) Peace Through Food: Ending the Hunger-Instability Nexus, ISD New Global Commons Working Group Report (August 2021) Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration, The World Bank (March 2018)  Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration, The White House (October 2021) Episode recorded: Interview with Beth Ferris: Friday, October 22, 2021; Interview with Bibi La Luz Gonzalez: Friday, September 24th, 2021; Interview with Jeremy Mathis: Monday, September 20th, 2021.  Episode image: Peace Through Food (Institute for the Study of Diplomacy)  Diplomatic Immunity: Frank and candid conversations about diplomacy and foreign affairs Diplomatic Immunity, a podcast from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, brings you frank and candid conversations with experts on the issues facing diplomats and national security decision-makers around the world.  Funding support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Produced by Alistair Somerville and Kelly McFarland. Production Assistance by Emily Linn.  For more, visit our website, and follow us on Twitter @GUDiplomacy. Send any feedback to diplomacy@georgetown.edu.

When Papa Balla Ndong launched his ambitious SIETAR Art Project, I had no idea how profound his initiative would have. The work spans hundreds of pages and threads together work, perspective and letters from contributors around the globe. It started in Europe, debuting in Paris, and has found it's way to Japan, Switzerland and countless other places across the globe. As a product of SIETAR, the Art Project embodies what both SIETAR and Papa Balla personify - unity. And while Papa Balla is a member of SIETAR, after speaking with him, it became clear that he is an ambassador for a great and global movement. Papa Balla Ndong sat down with 54Lights to take us through his selfless work and life mission. One that has landed him on the front lines of supporting migrants in Spain find a way and a home. Papa Balla explained how his educational background inspired him to discover more about migrants and how different cultures can collide and clash but also how they can collude and conspire for good.  He candidly takes us through his work and how he's been navigating tensions to create safe and productive spaces where migrant communities can flourish. His generosity, spirit and passion are clear reasons why he's been successful at working with policy-makers to influence progressive changes in government. And while a lot of his work lies with government and the migrant community, he somehow finds time to work with youth to educate them about racism - cutting it off before it takes root. As he took us through his journey, he explained the stark realities and challenges that face migrants...the systematic racism that they face...and the hard work that we all have to do to collectively open up our communities.   Notable Words of Wisdom during our conversation One hand doesn't clap... Papa Balla's perspective on working together You are not born with racism, you are taught racism...Papa Balla's perspective on racism and why he works with youth on curbing it About our guestPapa Balla Ndong, from Senegal, is a Human Migration Expert and holds a Masters degree in International Migration from the faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia. He has worked in Solans Lawyers Office, specializing in Foreign Law and participated in training courses in the General Council of the Spanish Judicial Power (CGPJ). Currently he performs the following charges: President of the Alternative Forum on Immigration, Coordinator of the Citizens Assembly Against Racism, Accredited Intercultural Mediator from Valencia Government, General Secretary of SOS Racisme Pais Valencia, Vice President of the Local Council of Immigration and Interculturality of the City of Valencia.Find out more on the SIETAR Art Project here

Hello, you're listening to the Migration & Diaspora Podcast, with me your host, Loksan Harley. Today, we've got Felipe Muñoz, Chief of the Migration Unit at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), with us to talk about Latin America's migration mega-trends. A bit about Felipe. He's been in his current position leading IDB's migration practice since August 2020. Before that, for more than two years, he was advisor to the President of Colombia on the country's comprehensive response to migration from Venezuela, during which time he was in charge of coordinating government responses to the migration flows at the national and regional levels. Previously, Felipe was senior counselor to the IDB Board of Executive Directors. His vast experience in Colombia's public sector includes serving as Private Security Superintendent, Director of the National Intelligence Agency, as well as adviser to Bogota's Mayor and the Minister of Finance, among other senior roles. I was really excited to get Felipe on the show today. He's gained some fantastic insights into migration and development issues, having both worked at the ground level, advising on his country's response to some of the highest levels of forced displacement seen worldwide, as well as at the international level as a pioneer of a truly cross-cutting approach to integrating migration into different areas of the IDB's development support to the region. As alluded to, Felipe starts by giving us his take on the big Latin American migration issues of today, including the far-reaching effects of the Venezuelan crisis, Central America's big migration trends, and the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We then talk in-depth about IDB's response to these issues, such as how it attaches migration support to its funding in other development sectors, as well as how Felipe and his team are going about placing migration at the centre of the IDB's development work. I hope you enjoyed listening to this as much as I enjoyed recording it and if you're listening on Apple iTunes, we'd be grateful if you could leave a review to tell us what you think. Thank you so much for tuning in and without further ado, here's our interview. Useful links IDB's migration website Episode 8 on Caribbean migration Episode 10 on mainstreaming migration MPI report on Managing the Pandemic and Its Aftermath: Economies, Jobs, and International Migration in the Age of COVID-19 MMC's study about the impact of COVID-19 on refugees and migrants BetterTogether Challenge

Dr. Robert McLeman, Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University joins the podcast. We discuss. -Key policy areas being developed to improve sustainability -Consequences of inaction -Major challenges that lay ahead -Impact on migration

We chat with Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, PhD, Reader in Migration and Politics, Director, MA in International Migration at the Brussels School of International Studies, University of Kent, and author of the book, Migrants or Expatriates?: Americans in Europe, about the relevance of her work for the American overseas community, just who the American living abroad is, the difference between migration and immigration, how well Congress knows the American overseas community, the hidden American abroad, and much more! Amanda's Full Biography Migrants or Expatriates?: Americans in Europe (Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship)

Louise Arbour, Special Representative for International Migration at the United Nations, on why we need to do better on migration, how international cooperation enhances national sovereignty, and what's at stake in the ongoing negotiations for the Global Compact for Migration. 

The Context of White Supremacy welcomes professor Heaven Crowley live from the United Kingdom. Professor Crawley is a White Woman and Professor of International Migration at Swansea University. Her research themes are the area of public policy relating to forced migration, asylum and different forms of international migration at the local, national, and international levels. She also investigates "the implications of diversity (in particular race and ethnicity, gender and childhood) for social justice and the ability of different groups to access resources (in particular legal rights, welfare support, housing and the labour market)." We'll discuss her 2012 report on the under-reporting of Racism in Wales. We would like to know what should be done eliminate Racist abuse, and if White people are also Victims of Racism. #TheCOWS4Years INVEST in The COWS – http://paypal.me/TheCOWS Cash App: https://cash.app/$TheCOWS CALL IN NUMBER: 605.313.5164 CODE: 564943#